Social care · Children's home inspection (SCCIF)
Children's Home run by Meadows Care Limited in Birmingham
Summary
What we read, and from where
Click a reading to see it highlighted in the report.
- Group verified
Meadows Care Limited
- Inspection date verified
7 Mar 2019
- Inspectorssingle source
Gareth Leckey
- Name on report verified
1240936
- URN verified
1240936
Deep dive
What this report says
In plain English
Join free to get a short, plain-English summary of any report.
Tone of the report
How positive or critical the inspectors' language is, from the words they chose. No AI involved.
Reads more critically than most reports of this type.
Markers show where typical reports of each grade sit.
How the report reads, start to finish
Every paragraph in order, sized by length. Tap one to see it on the page.
Strengths
Quoted from the report. Tap to see it on the page.
No standout praise found.
Concerns
Quoted from the report. Tap to see it on the page.
No strong criticism found.
Next steps
Quoted from the report. Tap to see it on the page.
- helps children aspire to fulfil their potential; and promotes their welfare. p.5
- understand the impact that the quality of care provided in the home is having on the progress and experiences of each child and use this understanding to inform the development of the quality of care provided in the home. p.5
- receive effectively planned care in or through the children’s home. p.5
- ensure that each employee completes an appropriate induction. p.6
What the report dwells on
Topics by how often they come up, coloured by how they are described. Open one for an example.
Anatomy of the report
How the report is built, against others of the same type and grade.
- Pages
- 7
- Words of findings
- 518
- shorter than usual (typical 1387)
- Reading level
- Fairly hard
- Flesch 51, typical 50
- Average sentence
- 17 words
- Next steps
- 4
- typical 4
- Hedged sentences
- 0%
- “some”, “not always”, “most”…
Where the words go
Full report text
Inspection report children’s home: 1240936 1 Registered provider: Meadows Care Limited Interim inspection Inspected under the social care common inspection framework
p.1
Information about this children’s home
This home is owned by a private company. It is operated under a contract with a large children’s trust. It is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to three young people who may have experienced trauma, placement breakdown and/or family breakdown.
p.1
Information about this children’s home
The manager has been registered since May 2018.
p.1
Information about this children’s home
Judgement at last inspection: requires improvement to be good
p.1
Information about this children’s home
Enforcement action since last inspection: none
p.1
and young people since the most recent full inspection
This home was judged requires improvement to be good at the last full inspection. At the interim inspection, Ofsted judges that it has declined in effectiveness.
p.1
and young people since the most recent full inspection
This inspection was brought forward due to escalating concerns identified in safeguarding notifications and anonymous whistle-blowing reports received by Ofsted.
p.1
and young people since the most recent full inspection
Young people are not safe in the home. This is because there are poor arrangements for managing risk and ensuring the safety of young people.
p.1
and young people since the most recent full inspection
Since the last inspection, the registered manager has failed to take sufficient action to promote young people’s safety and protect them from harm. For example, an ex- resident and his associates have made a number of serious threats of harm towards staff Inspection report children’s home: 1240936 2 and one young person. These have included threats to shoot and stab staff. The risk of harm was heightened as the front door of the home was left in a state of disrepair and was not secure for several days. This compromised the security of the home and left staff and young people at high risk of harm. Staff told the inspector that they had repeatedly asked senior managers to have the door repaired, as they were terrified.
p.1
and young people since the most recent full inspection
An absence of basic, effective management oversight and communication places young people at risk. For example, staff reported that multiple threats have been made to the home, whereas the registered manager reported that there had only been two such incidents in total. One member of staff told the inspector that they had not slept when on sleep-in’s due to the fear and the magnitude of the threats. The member of staff reported having to work 36 hours without adequate slept. When this was raised with the registered manager, she was unaware of how tired and frightened the staff are.
p.2
and young people since the most recent full inspection
Young people’s risk assessments do not align with their needs. There is a significant concern about a sexual relationship between two young people in the home. Staff have not been given any risk management strategies for managing this relationship. Staff do not feel they have enough staffing resources to manage the risks associated with this relationship. For example, the young people’s bedroom doors are alarmed in the evening to support the management of any overnight risks. However, some members of staff reported that they may not hear the alarms because they are so exhausted. Other staff told the inspector that they choose to stay awake throughout the night to try and prevent sexual activity between the two young people. The lack of adequate risk management and the insufficient numbers of staff mean that young people are exposed to ongoing high levels of risk.
p.2
and young people since the most recent full inspection
One young person is at high risk of harm from a local gang. She recently told staff that there is a £50 reward ‘on her head’ for anyone who will physically assault and harm her. Despite the manager and staff knowing about this threat, the young person continues to have a high level of unsupervised time in the community. The registered manager considers that there are adequate safeguards in place on the basis that the young person answers her mobile phone when staff call her. This is not a robust or effective basis on which to manage these risks of harm. The manager also believes that the young person does not visit areas of particular risk during her unsupervised time. However, the young person told the inspector that she would still visit these areas if she needed to. The absence of a well-considered risk assessment combined with poor management oversight places the young person at a high level of risk.
p.2
and young people since the most recent full inspection
Staff failed to safeguard one young person during a recent incident. The young person was with a gang and at a high level of risk. The young person told staff in a telephone call that she had been forced by the gang to take substances and that there was a risk that she could be stabbed. Staff failed to respond effectively to this immediate risk. They took no protective action and did not try to collect the young person and return her home. Instead, the members of staff relied on the police to respond to the young person’s situation and as a result there was a significant delay in action being taken to safeguard her. This resulted in the young person not being collected until the afternoon of the following day by the police. The young person later disclosed to staff that she had Inspection report children’s home: 1240936 3 been raped during this incident. This incident is now the subject of a police investigation.
p.2
and young people since the most recent full inspection
The staff rota shows that some staff are working excessive hours. In addition, there is a lack of clarity about the staffing ratios required to keep young people safe. Staff told the inspector that four staff are needed on each shift to keep young people safe. The registered manager disputed this figure. This level of disconnect and misinformation about such key matters exposes young people to high levels of risk.
p.3
and young people since the most recent full inspection
Staff morale is low, with some staff feeling disrespected and unsupported by some members of the management team. They feel that staff handovers are not helpful and there is little time to reflect on their practice. Staff also feel that the quality of their inductions is very poor. This has left new staff vulnerable and ill-equipped to meet the complex needs of the young people.
p.3
and young people since the most recent full inspection
Social workers reported that staff do not offer young people the consistent guidance, challenge and nurture that they need in order to resolve basic issues. For example, staff have frequently told one young person to contact her social worker for advice, without making any attempt to resolve the issue themselves. In another case, staff contacted a social worker at 10.30 in the evening for advice on how to manage their concerns for a young person. The registered manager does not always share key information with social workers. For example, social workers were unaware of the full extent of the threats to the home. Social workers are also unable to consistently access the home’s electronic recording system to review incidents involving young people. The registered manager’s reluctance to share information via email compounds this issue. This lack of joined-up care and information-sharing exposes young people to risk.
p.3
and young people since the most recent full inspection
The registered manager told the inspector that she is concerned about the competency of the staff team. She feels that staff require frequent guidance to undertake basic care tasks, including the supervision of young people. During the inspection, the registered manager had to offer such guidance to staff on a number of occasions. The registered manager recently held an emergency staff meeting to address these significant shortfalls. Records of this meeting show that inconsistent staff practice led to a staff member being seriously assaulted by a young person.
p.3
and young people since the most recent full inspection
The inspection identified evidence of how young people’s distress results in significant damage to the home. For example, a young person has smashed their bedroom window, while another young person has destroyed an internal door.
p.3
and young people since the most recent full inspection
The registered manager fails to provide adequate oversight and review of the care young people receive. This lack of oversight and support means that staff feel disillusioned. In addition, high staff turnover and poor communication mean that young people receive inconsistent care. One young person told the inspector that they don’t know the staff anymore and it is ‘sad that they keep leaving’.
p.3
Inspection date Inspection type Inspection judgement
Inspection report children’s home: 1240936 4 23/05/2018 Full Requires improvement to be good 02/11/2017 Interim Sustained effectiveness 13/06/2017 Full Requires improvement to be good
p.4
Statutory requirements
This section sets out the actions that the registered person(s) must take to meet the Care Standards Act 2000, Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015 and the ‘Guide to the children’s homes regulations including the quality standards’. The registered person(s) must comply within the given timescales.
p.4
Requirement Due date
The protection of children standard is that children are protected from harm and enabled to keep themselves safe.
p.4
Requirement Due date
In particular, the standard in paragraph (1) requires the registered person to ensure—
p.4
Requirement Due date
assess whether each child is at risk of harm, taking into account information in the child’s relevant plans, and, if necessary, make arrangements to reduce the risk of any harm to the child;
p.4
Requirement Due date
have the skills to identify and act upon signs that a child is at risk of harm;
p.4
Requirement Due date
manage relationships between children to prevent them from harming each other;
p.4
Requirement Due date
understand the roles and responsibilities in relation to protecting children that are assigned to them by the registered person;
p.4
Requirement Due date
take effective action whenever there is a serious concern about a child’s welfare; and
p.4
Requirement Due date
are familiar with, and act in accordance with, the home’s child protection policies;
p.4
Requirement Due date
that the home’s day-to-day care is arranged and delivered so as to keep each child safe and to protect each child effectively from harm; 22/04/2019 Inspection report children’s home: 1240936 5 that the effectiveness of the home’s child protection policies is monitored regularly. (Regulation 12(1)(2)(a)(i)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi)(vii)(b)(e)) The leadership and management standard is that the registered person enables, inspires and leads a culture in relation to the children’s home that—
p.4
Requirement Due date
helps children aspire to fulfil their potential; and promotes their welfare.
p.5
Requirement Due date
In particular, the standard in paragraph (1) requires the registered person to—
p.5
Requirement Due date
lead and manage the home in a way that is consistent with the approach and ethos, and delivers the outcomes, set out in the home’s statement of purpose;
p.5
Requirement Due date
ensure that staff work as a team where appropriate;
p.5
Requirement Due date
ensure that staff have the experience, qualifications and skills to meet the needs of each child;
p.5
Requirement Due date
ensure that the home has sufficient staff to provide care for each child;
p.5
Requirement Due date
ensure that the home’s workforce provides continuity of care to each child;
p.5
Requirement Due date
understand the impact that the quality of care provided in the home is having on the progress and experiences of each child and use this understanding to inform the development of the quality of care provided in the home. (Regulation 13(1)(a)(b)(2)(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)) 22/04/2019
p.5
Requirement Due date
The care planning standard is that children—
p.5
Requirement Due date
receive effectively planned care in or through the children’s home.
p.5
Requirement Due date
In particular, the standard in paragraph (1) requires the registered person to ensure—
p.5
Requirement Due date
(e) that the child’s placing authority is contacted, and a review of that child’s relevant plans is requested, if—
p.5
Requirement Due date
(i) the registered person considers that the child is at risk of harm or has concerns that the care provided for the child is 22/04/2019 Inspection report children’s home: 1240936 6 inadequate to meet the child’s needs. (Regulation 14(1)(a)(2)(e)(i)) The registered person must—
p.5
Requirement Due date
ensure that each employee completes an appropriate induction. (Regulation 33(1)(a)) 22/04/2019
p.6
Information about this inspection
Inspectors have looked closely at the experiences and progress of children and young people. Inspectors considered the quality of work and the differences made to the lives of children and young people. They watched how professional staff work with children and young people and each other and discussed the effectiveness of help and care provided. Wherever possible, they talked to children and young people and their families. In addition, the inspectors have tried to understand what the children’s home knows about how well it is performing, how well it is doing and what difference it is making for the children and young people whom it is trying to help, protect and look after.
p.6
Information about this inspection
This inspection focused on the effectiveness of the home and the progress and experiences of children and young people since the most recent full inspection.
p.6
Information about this inspection
Using the ‘Social care common inspection framework’, this inspection was carried out under the Care Standards Act 2000 to assess the effectiveness of the service, how it meets the core functions of the service as set out in legislation, and to consider how well it complies with the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015 and the ‘Guide to the children’s homes regulations including the quality standards’.
p.6
Children’s home details
Registered provider: Meadows Care Limited
p.6
Children’s home details
Registered provider address: Egerton House, Wardle Road, Rochdale OL12 9EN
p.6
Children’s home details
Responsible individual: Niel Shelmerdine
p.6
Children’s home details
Registered manager: Samantha Goodrickmeech
p.6
Inspector
Gareth Leckey, social care inspector Inspection report children’s home: 1240936 7 achieve excellence in the care of children and young people, and in education and skills for learners of all ages. It regulates and inspects childcare and children’s social care, and inspects the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass), schools, colleges, initial teacher training, further education and skills, adult and community learning, and education and training in prisons and other secure establishments. It assesses council children’s services, and inspects services for children looked after, safeguarding and child protection.
p.6
Inspector
If you would like a copy of this document in a different format, such as large print or Braille, please telephone 0300 123 1231, or email enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk . You may reuse this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence , write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk .
p.7
Inspector
Interested in our work? You can subscribe to our monthly newsletter for more information and updates: http://eepurl.com/iTrDn .
p.7
Inspector
T: 0300 123 1231 Textphone: 0161 618 8524 E: enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk W: http://www.gov.uk/ofsted
p.7
Discuss this inspection
Members compare notes on inspectors and inspections here. Join free to read and post.
Join the discussion